This response proves you didn't even read the page that you are using to "debunk" the video. It doesn't address this video. This page, which contains one paragraph and a broken link to a video, is the one addressing it:

http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm

Again, you present yourself as the voice of chicken little, as your perpetrate another myth upon the overpopulation myth, which is the myth of peak oil. We are not in danger of running out of oil anytime soon; in fact, because of new technology and methods, such as the fracking boom, our domestic energy production is expected to rise significantly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oil-peter-orszag.html

Since 1976 our proven oil reserves are double from where they started, and new reserves are being found continuously:

http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/25/petrobras-confirms-tupi-field-could-hold-8-billion-barrels

http://www.albawaba.com/iran-discovers-huge-oil-field-report-415465

There is also evidence that oil fields are refilling:

http://www.rense.com/general63/refil.htm

The fact is that there is an oil boom in the western hemisphere:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/world/americas/recent-discoveries-put-americas-back-in-oil-companies-sights.html

The coal oil sands in Canada alone are estimated to hold 175 billion barrels of oil. What I find interesting hpqp, as you do another hit and run, is that you have all the faith in the world that science will solve all of our problems, except when it comes to your favorite doomsday hypothesis.

As I have already proven, we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is in the inequity of man and in the inefficient and wasteful distribution. We lose over 1/3 of the food we produce to waste. We have more than enough fuel to supply our agriculture, and the research shows that having smaller and more energy efficient farms will increase yields even further, and not significantly impact biodiversity.


>> ^hpqp:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You call one paragraph and a video that doesn't exist debunking this? Let's examine the paragraph:
"Together the world’s 6.8 billion people use land equal in size to South America to grow food and raise livestock—an astounding agricultural footprint. And demographers predict the planet will host 9.5 billion people by 2050. Because each of us requires a minimum of 1,500 calories a day, civilization will have to cultivate another Brazil’s worth of land—2.1 billion acres—if farming continues to be practiced as it is today. That much new, arable earth simply does not exist."
http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm
Did you miss when it said in the video that we're growing more food on less land, and that there are techniques which can turn barren land fertile, such has been practiced in Brazil and Thailand? Farming is going to continue as it does today; more yield per acre, and more barren land turned fertile, and it will continue to outstrip population growth. You've debunked nothing; you have no argument at all. I doubt you even read the page.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2004/10-04/hist_tbl.xls
efficiency statistics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/02tropic.html?_r=2
Scientists Are Making Brazil’s Savannah Bloom
>> ^hpqp:
Debunking the lies, nonsense and misinformation of this video: http://www.vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm
I disagree with the vhemt's core ideology (I do not want the human race to go extinct), but this page does a good job of exposing this crap.
If you want some real math, watch this series: http://youtu.be/F-QA2rkpBSY


The first page I linked to has no video, so I don't know what you're on about with that (my 2nd link, the youtube one, definitely works), but it has much more than "one paragraph" (not that that matters) showing the manipulation and misrepresentation in your video. As for "growing more food on less land", two words: oil and biodiversity. Without going into details, most (if not all) modern agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels, a dwindling, non-renewable resource (fertilization, transport, etc.). The article you link to indirectly makes my second point: with the disappearance of fossil fuels, people are turning to biofuels (e.g. palm oil, mentioned in your article) which destroy biodiversity and cause several other issues ). Meanwhile, the soybeans and beef production (the one to feed the other btw) cause a large amount of ecological damage.
That's the last I'm answering to you (although it's more for the benefit of other readers, since I know how you are with the facts of reality).

This is the number one reason Canada doesn't open up the Oil Sands of Alberta and off coast drilling - to hold off US invasion!

oil sands

I think the debt reduction is valid for some members. Canada didn't get hit nearly as hard as Americans or Icelanders did, so from our PM's perspective, debt reduction makes sense (I have political disagreements with the guy, but Canadians are generally proud of our Governments' fiscal responsibility - fake lake notwithstanding).

However, you guys could definitely use some more stimulus (and not to the banks). I hear Krugman warning against a relapse into recession and maybe even depression, and that is the last thing America needs right now (imagine what the Republicans would do with that?)

Environmental regulation would be nice - but Harper is a Calgary Tory, which means he eats crude oil for breakfast. Remember, he was the one who called Kyoto a Socialist Scheme to re-distribute wealth. I was frankly surprised Obama didn't go after him a little bit on that, but I have been hearing that the Americans are reluctant to criticize Canada too much on the oil sands fearing we may just say 'fuck it' and export to China instead. Even the European countries didn't really mention it too much - I figured Germany or France would at least bring it up.

Some would say that violent protest is the only way to make them notice - that they don't listen the other 900 days between G8/G20 meetings, and this is an opportunity to get their attention. After Montebello, I think it's safe to assume the cops wanted to bump some heads, and as agents of state authority who are funded by my tax dollars, it's our duty to oblige.

It does water down the message a bit - it is hard to discern their purpose or motivations sometimes. I think the purpose it does serve is reminding people that they are not alone in their disgust with 'The Man'. It's like what they say about France being the last place where Governments are still afraid of the people. >> ^NetRunner:

Apparently, the big theme for the meetings is Debt Reduction. Whaddya think?
What do you think the G8/G20 leaders should be focusing on? How would you go about solving the world's problems?
I think the Debt Reduction part of it is crazy stupid. I'm glad the US delegation is arguing for more fiscal stimulus, though I'm sad to say we seem to be the only ones.
What should they be focusing on? Fiscal stimulus, environmental regulation, and making the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.
Human rights would be nice too, but they're an economic group, they don't do the human rights thing. That's the UN's impotent jurisdiction.
How do you see the protests that have been taking place? Is violence ever justified? Pics.
Do the minority of the protesters who vandalize and attack security folks have just cause? Are they ruining it for the peaceful demonstrators? Do they only serve to tarnish the many causes of other protesters and groups?
I think the protests are totally ineffective. The G20 members don't give a shit, and regular joes don't ever hear what they have to say. Hell, even political junkies like me would be hard pressed to say who's doing the protesting, beyond the anarchists who seem to only exist to protest G8/G20 meetings.
There's no point in violence committed against security forces at the G20. People who do it tarnish the reputation of the protesters, and give any jackbooted statists (real or imagined) good propaganda to use to dismiss the protests.

>> ^detheter:
That is where I live. Sorry all!


How do people in Alberta feel about the environmental aspects of the oil sands generally?

>> ^rougy:
I'm thinking hard about moving to Canada. Winnipeg is off the list now.
Looking at Calgary or Vancouver.


Montreal is truly the shit, if you ask me -- although I guess it depends on what you want. Van and Calgary are both very expensive (and Cal has a housing shortage) although Cal and the rest of Alberta are covered in money from the oil sands operations in the north. Both have good weather -- Van hardly ever sees snow. Calgary is an hour or two from the Rocky Mountains and some of the best alpine skiing in North America.

Where are you now -- France, wasn't it?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'alberta, peak, oil, sands, vice, vbs, climate, environmental, destruction' to 'alberta, peak oil, oil sands, vice, vbs, climate, environmental, destruction' - edited by calvados

Part II can be found here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Investigative-report-on-Albertas-oil-sands-mines

The documentary in its entirety is found at: http://www.vbs.tv

Prescient words by Vonnegut on the subject: http://www.videosift.com/video/Kurt-Vonnegut-Addicted-to-oil

>> ^Skeeve:
She's hot, but she's also full of crap. There is an estimated 1.75 trillion barrels of conventional oil worldwide (mostly in Saudi Arabia). If we continue to use about 30 billion barrels of oil per year we would run out in 58 years. The Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada has at least 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, doubling that rough estimate to 116 years. There is a further 235 billion barrels in the tar sands of Venezuela.
She says tar sands (among other energy sources) wont make up for a fraction of the oil we use but she should have checked the numbers - tar sands make up about 2/3 of the world's oil.
I totally agree that we should reduce our dependence on oil and work towards more efficient and more environmentally friendly sources of energy, but using the same inaccurate scare tactics that people have been using for decades is not the right way to do it.


The main reason the "scare tactics" aren't effective is because there's always a fleet of people who want to come out and say "That's not true! Everything's fine, we've got decades to worry about it! Why do anything until it's all gone?" People choose to believe the rosier picture. I guess that's human nature.

The reason she says tar sands won't make up the difference is because it's a lot harder to extract.

Case in point, from the Wikipedia page on the Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, it says that only 10% is able to be economically retrieved. That estimate is out of date, since that's based on an oil price of $69/barrel, and it's ~$125 right now. So, more oil will be extractable, but only because of the higher price.

You're also assuming fixed demand, but in reality demand is going up, and is expected to rise exponentially as nations like China and India start buying cars en masse.

The only reason we won't actually run out of oil is because we use a free market to distribute it. Given a diminishing supply, and rising demand, price will grow rapidly. People will have to curtail their use of oil, simply because they won't be able to afford to use it anymore.

If there's no comparably cheap alternative, there's going to be a global economic crash the likes of which we've never experienced. Cheap alternatives, if they can be found, will take years to develop, and decades to implement.

We knew all this in the 1970's, but decided not to invest in developing an alternative. Mostly because a bunch of people, backed by the oil industry, came out and made an argument essentially saying "eh, we've got a long time to worry about it, don't develop alternatives!"

Telling people the truth (a "scare tactic" of the worst kind) hasn't worked. She figured maybe men will listen if she does a sexy dance while speaking the truth.

Guess she'll have to try something else.

She's hot, but she's also full of crap. There is an estimated 1.75 trillion barrels of conventional oil worldwide (mostly in Saudi Arabia). If we continue to use about 30 billion barrels of oil per year we would run out in 58 years. The Athabasca Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada has at least 1.7 trillion barrels of oil, doubling that rough estimate to 116 years. There is a further 235 billion barrels in the tar sands of Venezuela.

She says tar sands (among other energy sources) wont make up for a fraction of the oil we use but she should have checked the numbers - tar sands make up about 2/3 of the world's oil.

I totally agree that we should reduce our dependence on oil and work towards more efficient and more environmentally friendly sources of energy, but using the same inaccurate scare tactics that people have been using for decades is not the right way to do it.

Yes, the climate goes in cycles, there have been ice ages before. But we also know climate can kill civilizations...and build civilizations (drought brought remote Africans to the Nile for example.)

If you watch the doc, you can clearly see there is an industry...the richest industry in the world that is using its extreme wealth to not make our planet a better place to live, and democracies should use their power of the people to fight these types of businesses. Maybe I would forgive Exxon for their years of damaging the earth if they started committing cleaner and maybe renewable energies, sure they wont make billions and billions every year, but what the hell are they doing with the billions and billions they already make? Buying yachts? bribing the Media? funding hack scientists.

Global Warming has been chewed up and spit out by the MSM, but its time for people to start thinking for themselves, the actions of these liars who are profiting from the literal destruction of the planet needs to be dealt with. The science is in. Spewing pollution into air is warming up the planet and already making it very unlivable (ever spent a summer in Toronto? Try Bejing!) That warmth is causing climates all over the earth to act wacky...It wont kill our planet, but it could certainly make the world a much less pleasant place for humans and animals to live (although in some places its not really pleasant right now.)

I don't mean to be an alarmist, but I grew up learning about the environment, we learnt about Global Warming in grade school back in the 80s. At that time we were under the impression that "adults" were taking care of it by recycling and composting. Then Canada starts profiting from the oil sands and our Global warming priorities are suddenly lined up with America...Where "The Jury is still out." - Understand our PM is loyal to Bush, but our PM cuts taxes and thats why people like him, don't worry about the 2500 troops euchred in Ghanistan. Once the arctic melts you can trade from Canada to Europe in hours, you almost have to wonder if these guys simply WANT to destroy the planet...apparently it pays. - http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989

bah!
So how's the weather in your neck of the woods choggie

I agree with bicycle Repair Guy, even though he and I have argued about evolution and natural selection previously. Social Democracy does create a better situation for most citizens. Canada is moving away from Social Democracy, and things are getting worse and worse. Look at Alberta's oil sands project, immense opportunities for wealth, and yet, more homelessness, crumbling infrastructure, expensive jails, unsustainable. At least the trickle-up-effect is working great, the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer. And the rich make up around 5 percent of the populous... maybe less